Assessment for Learning around the World:
What Would it Mean to Be “Internationally Competitive?”
Linda Darling-Hammond & Laura McCloskey
Stanford University
Since the release of A Nation at Risk twenty five years ago, a set of wide-ranging
reforms has been launched with the intention of better preparing all children for the
higher educational demands of life and work in the 21st century. All 50 states have
developed standards for learning and tests to evaluate student progress. The emphasis on
using test-based accountability to raise achievement was reinforced by the requirements
of the No Child Left Behind Act, passed in 2001, yet the United States has fallen further
behind on international assessments of student learning since the law was passed.
On the Program in International Student Assessment (PISA) tests in 2006, the
U.S. ranked 35th among the top 40 countries in mathematics and 31st in science, a decline
in both raw scores and rankings from 3 years earlier.1 (Reading scores were not reported,
because of editing problems with the U.S. test.) Furthermore, in each disciplinary area
tested, U.S. students scored lowest on the problem-solving items. The U.S. also had a
much wider achievement gap than the most highly-ranked jurisdictions, such as Finland,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Korea, and Japan.
Current policy discussions in Washington often refer to these rankings in
emphasizing the need to create more “internationally competitive” standards by
benchmarking expectations in the U.S. to those in high-performing nations abroad.
Typically, this means looking at the topics that are taught at various grade levels in
various countries. These analyses reveal that higher-achieving countries teach fewer
1
topics more deeply each year; focus more on reasoning skills and applications of
knowledge, rather than mere coverage; and have a more thoughtful sequence of
expectations based on developmental learning progressions within and across domains.2
It is also important that we examine how these topics are taught and assessed – so
that we understand how other countries’ education systems shape what students actually
learn and can do. European and Asian nations that have steeply improved student
learning have focused explicitly on creating curriculum guidance and assessments that
focus on the so-called 21st century skills: the abilities to find and organize information to
solve problems, frame and conduct investigations, analyze and synthesize data, apply
learning to new situations, self-monitor and improve one’s own learning and
performance, communicate well in multiple forms, work in teams, and learn
independently.
Curriculum differences are reinforced by sharp divergence between the forms of
testing used in the United States and those used in higher-achieving countries. Whereas
U.S. tests rely primarily on multiple choice items that evaluate recall and recognition of
discrete facts, most high-achieving countries rely largely on open-ended items that
require students to analyze, apply knowledge, and write extensively. Furthermore, their
growing emphasis on project-based, inquiry-oriented learning has led to an increasing
prominence for school-based tasks, which include research projects, science
investigations, development of products, and reports or presentations about these efforts.
These influence the day to day work of teaching and learning, focusing it on the
development of higher order skills and use of knowledge to solve problems.
2
Smaller countries often have a system of national standards which are sometimes
– although not always – accompanied by national tests. Top-ranking Finland, for
example, uses local assessments to evaluate its national standards and manages a
voluntary national assessment at only one grade level. Larger nations -- like Canada,
Australia, and China – have state- or provincial-level standards, and their assessment
systems are typically a blend of state and local assessments. Managing assessment at the
state level where it remains relatively close to the schools turns out to be an important
way of enabling strong teacher participation and ensuring high-quality local assessments
that can be moderated to ensure consistency in scoring.
In many cases, these local assessments are designed to complement centralized
“on-demand” assessments, comprising up to 50% of the final examination score. The
tasks are mapped to the standards or syllabus for the subject and are selected because
they represent critical skills, topics, and concepts. They are often outlined in the
curriculum guide, but they are generally designed, administered and scored locally, based
on common specifications and evaluation criteria. Whether locally or centrally
developed, decisions about when to undertake these tasks are made at the classroom
level, so they are used when appropriate for students’ learning process and teachers can
get information and provide feedback when it is needed, something that traditional
standardized tests cannot do. In addition, as teachers use and evaluate these tasks, they
become more knowledgeable about both the standards and how to teach to them and
about what their students’ learning needs are. Thus, the process improves the quality of
teaching and learning.
3
Like the behind-the-wheel test given for all new drivers in the United States, these
performance assessments evaluate what students can actually do, not just what they
know. The road test not only reveals some important things about potential drivers’
skills, it also helps improve those skills as potential drivers practice to get better. In the
same way, performance assessments set a standard toward which everyone must work.
The task and the standards are not secret: they are transparent, so that people know what
skills they need to develop and how they will need to be demonstrated.
Finally, the examination systems in these countries are not used to rank or punish
schools, nor are they used to deny diplomas to students. Following the problems that
resulted from the Thatcher government’s use of test-based school rankings, which caused
a narrowing of the curriculum and widespread exclusions of students from school,3
several countries even enacted legislation precluding the use of test results for school
rankings. High school examinations are used to provide information for higher
education, vocational training, and employment, and students often choose the areas in
which they will be examined, as a means of providing evidence of their qualifications.
Because the systems are focused on using information for curriculum improvement rather
than sanctions, governments can set higher standards and work with schools to achieve
them, rather than having to devise tests and set cut-scores at a minimal level to avoid
dysfunctional side-effects.
Many states in the U.S. – including Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming – have
developed and used state and local performance assessments as part of their testing
systems. Indeed, the National Science Foundation provided millions of dollars for states
4
to develop such hands-on science and math assessments as part of its Systemic Initiative
in the 1990s, and prototypes exist all over the country. Studies have found that the use of
such assessments has improved teaching quality and increased student achievement,
especially in areas requiring complex reasoning and problem solving.4 However, these
assessments have been difficult to sustain, especially in recent years under the annual
testing requirements of No Child Left Behind, and there is little widespread
understanding in the policy community about how systems of assessment for learning
might be constructed and managed at scale.
Here we describe the assessment systems of several high-achieving education
systems: two of the highest-achieving Scandinavian nations – Finland and Sweden – and
a group of English-speaking jurisdictions that have some shared approaches to
assessment, as well as some interesting variations: Australia, Hong Kong, and the United
Kingdom (whose approaches, we note, are similar to those in Singapore, New Zealand
and Canada, though space does not allow us to treat them here). We discuss in particular
how assessments are linked to curriculum and integrated into the instructional process, so
that they can shape and improve learning for students and teachers alike.
Finland and Sweden
Finland has been a poster child for school improvement since it rapidly climbed to
the top of the international rankings after it emerged from the Soviet Union’s shadow. It
now ranks first among all the OECD nations on the PISA assessments in mathematics,
science, and reading. Leaders in Finland attribute these gains to their intensive
investments in teacher education – all teachers receive three years of high-quality
graduate level preparation completely at state expense – plus major overhaul of the
5
curriculum and assessment system. Most teachers now hold master’s degrees in both
their content and in education, and their preparation is aimed at learning to teach diverse
learners – including special needs students – for deep understanding, with a strong focus
on how to use formative performance assessments in the service of student learning.5
Sweden also invests heavily in graduate level teacher education for all teachers, and relies
on a highly trained teaching force to implement its curriculum and assessment system.
Over the past 40 years, Both Finland and Sweden have shifted from highly
centralized systems emphasizing external testing to more localized systems using
multiple forms of assessments. Around 1970, Sweden abolished its nationally
administered exit exam that ranked Upper Secondary students and placed them in higher
education programs.6 Finland followed suit, overhauling its curriculum system in two
stages between the 1970s and 1990s, and both nations eliminated the practice of tracking
students into different streams by their test scores, offering a common core curriculum to
all students. These changes were intended to equalize educational outcomes and provide
more open-access to higher education.7
Although it may seem counterintuitive to those accustomed to external testing as a
means of accountability, Finland’s use of school-based, student-centered, open-ended
tasks embedded in the curriculum is touted by its leaders as an important reason for the
nation’s extraordinary success on the international exams.8 Policymakers decided that if
they invested in very skillful teachers, they could allow local schools more autonomy to
make decisions about what and how to teach — a reaction against the highly centralized
system they sought to overhaul. The current national core curriculum is a much leaner
document, reduced from hundreds of pages of highly specific prescriptions to
6
descriptions of a small number of skills and core concepts each year. (About 10 pages
describe the full set of math standards for all grades, for example.) This guides teachers
in collectively developing local curriculum and assessments that encourage students to be
active learners who can find, analyze, and use information to solve problems in novel
situations.
There are no external standardized tests used to rank students or schools. Schoollevel samples of student performance are evaluated periodically by the Finnish education
authorities, generally at the end of the 2nd and 9th grades, to inform curriculum decisions
and school investments. All other assessments are designed and managed locally. The
national core curriculum provides teachers with recommended assessment criteria for
specific grades in each subject and in the overall final assessment of student progress
each year.9 Schools then use those guidelines to craft a more detailed set of learning
outcomes and curriculum at each school, along with approaches to assessing the
curriculum benchmarks.
The national standards emphasize that the main purpose of assessing students is to
guide and encourage students’ own reflection and self-assessment. Consequently, ongoing feedback from the teacher is very important. Teachers give students formative and
summative reports both through verbal feedback and on a numerical scale reflecting the
students’ level of performance in relation to the objectives of the curriculum. The
teachers’ reports must be based on multiple forms of assessment, not only exams.
Assessment is used in Finland to cultivate students’ active learning skills by
asking open-ended questions and helping students address these problems. In a Finnish
classroom, it is rare to see a teacher standing at the front of a classroom lecturing students
7
for fifty minutes. Instead, students are generally engaged in independent or group
projects, often choosing the tasks they will work on and setting their own targets with
teachers in specific subject areas, who serve as coaches.10 The cultivation of
independence and active learning encourages students to develop analytical thinking,
problem solving, and meta-cognitive skills.
Most Finnish students take a voluntary matriculation exam which asks students to
apply problem solving, analytic and writing skills prior to attending university.11
Teachers use official guidelines to grade the matriculation exams locally, and samples of
the grades are re-examined by professional raters hired by the Matriculation Exam
Board.12
Similarly, Sweden implements its nationally outlined and locally implemented
curriculum with multiple assessments managed at the school level. A national
curriculum and subject matter syllabi are adapted by each school to local conditions.13
Teachers design and score school-based assessments based on the objectives outlined in
each syllabus, and they assign grades based on syllabus goals and national assessment
criteria. They are expected to conduct meetings during each school term with every
student and parent(s) to discuss the student’s learning and social development, and they
use a number of diagnostic materials to assess students’ learning in Swedish, Swedish as
a Second Language, English, and Mathematics in relation to the goals set by the syllabi.14
Schools offer nationally approved examinations in year 9 and in the Upper
Secondary years in these same subjects.15 Teachers work with university faculty to help
design the tasks and questions, and they weight information from these exams, their own
assessments, and classroom work to assign a grade reflecting how well students have met
8
the objectives of the syllabus.16 Regional education officials and schools provide time for
teachers to calibrate their grading practices to minimize variation across the schools and
across the region.17 Towards the end of their Upper Secondary schooling, Swedish
students receive a final grade or “learning certificate” in each area that acts as a
compilation of all of these sources of evidence, including projects completed by the
student as well as grades awarded for courses.
Swedish assessments use open-ended, authentic tasks asking students to
demonstrate content knowledge and analytic skills in grappling with real world problems.
This sample question from a grade 5 exam asks students (aged 11-12) to think through a
problem that they might have in their own lives:
Carl bikes home from school at four o’clock. It takes about a quarter of an
hour. In the evening he’s going back to school because the class is having
a party. The party starts at 6 o’clock. Before the class party starts, Carl has
to eat dinner. When he comes home, his grandmother calls, who is also his
neighbor. She wants him to bring in her post before he bikes over to the
class party. She also wants him to take her dog for a walk, then to come in
and have a chat. What does Carl have time to do before the party begins?
Write and describe below how you have reasoned.18
Upper Secondary exams also frame challenging questions in real world terms,
with the expectation that students will show their work and reasoning. For example:
In 1976 Lena had a monthly salary of 6,000 kr. By 1984 her salary had risen to
9,000 kr. In current prices, her salary had risen by 50%. How large was the
percent change in fixed prices? In 1976 the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 382;
in 1984 it was 818.19
Students who experience a steady diet of such challenging tasks requiring
thoughtful reasoning and the ability to communicate their thinking are well-prepared for
the kinds of problem-solving required in the real world.
Australia, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong
9
Whereas smaller countries like Finland and Sweden have national curriculum
guidance, in much-larger Australia, each state has its own curriculum and assessment
program. At the national level in Australia, the only assessment is a periodic matrix
sample-based assessment, rather like the National Assessment of Educational Progress in
the U.S. In most states, local school-based performance assessment is a well-developed
part of the system. In some cases, states have also developed centralized assessment with
performance components. The two highest-achieving states, Queensland and A.C.T.,
have the most highly developed systems of local performance assessment. Victoria,
which uses a blended model of centralized and school-based assessment, also generally
performs well on national and international tests.
In Queensland, there has been no assessment system external to schools for 40
years. Until the early 1970s, a traditional “post-colonial” examination system controlled
the curriculum. When it was eliminated, about the same time as in Finland and Sweden,
all assessments became school-based. School-based assessments are developed,
administered and scored by teachers in relation to the national curriculum guidelines and
state syllabi (also developed by teachers), and are moderated by panels that include
teachers from other schools as well as professors from the university system.
The syllabi spell out a small number of key concepts and/or skills to be learned in
each course, and what kinds of projects or activities (including minimum assessment
requirements) students should be engaged in. Each school designs its program to fit the
needs and experiences of its own students, choosing specific texts and topics with this in
mind. At the end of the year, teachers collect a portfolio of each student’s work, which
includes the specific assessment tasks, and grade it on a 5-point grading scale. To
10
calibrate these grades, teachers put together a selection of portfolios from each grade
level – one from each of the 5 score levels, plus borderline cases – and send these to a
regional panel for moderation. A panel of five teachers re-scores the portfolios and
confers about whether the grade is warranted, making a judgment on the spread. A state
panel also looks at portfolios across schools. Based on these moderation processes, the
school is given instructions to adjust grades so that they are comparable to others.
Queensland’s “New Basics” and “Rich Tasks” approach to assessment, which
began in 2003, also offers extended, multi-disciplinary tasks that are developed centrally
and used locally when teachers determine the time is right and they can be integrated
with locally-oriented curriculum. They are "specific activities that students undertake that
have real-world value and use, and through which students are able to display their grasp
and use of important ideas and skills.”20 Rich Tasks are defined as:
…a culminating performance or demonstration or product that is purposeful and
models a life role. It presents substantive, real problems to solve and engages
learners in forms of pragmatic social action that have real value in the world. The
problems require identification, analysis and resolution, and require students to
analyze, theorize and engage intellectually with the world. As well as having this
connectedness to the world beyond the classroom, the tasks are also rich in their
application: they represent an educational outcome of demonstrable and
substantial intellectual and educational value. And, to be truly rich, a task must
be transdisciplinary. Transdisciplinary learnings draw upon practices and skills
across disciplines while retaining the integrity of each individual discipline.
The Science and Ethics task summarized below illustrates these traits.
Science and Ethics Confer
Students must identify, explore and make judgments on a biotechnological
process to which there are ethical dimensions. Students identify scientific
techniques used as well as significant recent contributions to the field. They will
also research frameworks of ethical principles for coming to terms with an
identified ethical issue or question. Using this information they prepare preconference materials for an international conference that will feature selected
speakers who are leading lights in their respective fields.
11
In order to do this students must choose and explore an area of biotechnology
where there are ethical issues under consideration and undertake laboratory
activities that help them understand some of the laboratory practices. This
enables them to:
A) Provide a written explanation of the fundamental technological differences in
some of the techniques used, or of potential use, in this area (included in the
pre-conference package for delegates who are not necessarily experts in this
area).
B) Consider the range of ethical issues raised in regard to this area’s purposes
and actions, and scientific techniques and principles and present a deep
analysis of an ethical issue about which there is a debate in terms of an ethical
framework.
C) Select six real-life people who have made relevant contributions to this area
and write a 150-200 word précis about each one indicating his/her
contribution, as well as a letter of invitation to one of them.
This assessment measures research and analytic skills; laboratory practices;
understanding biological and chemical structures and systems, nomenclature and
notations; organizing, arranging, sifting through, and making sense of ideas;
communicating using formal correspondence; précis writing with a purpose;
understanding ethical issues and principles; time management, and much more.
A bank of these tasks now exists across grade levels, along with scoring rubrics,
and moderation processes by which the quality of the tasks, the student work, and the
scoring can be evaluated. Research indicates that the system has offered a successful tool
for school improvement. Studies have found stronger student engagement in learning in
schools using the Rich Tasks. On traditional tests, New Basics students scored about the
same as students in the traditional program, but they performed notably better on
assessments designed to gauge higher order thinking. The Singapore government has
employed the developers of the Queensland system to focus the new school improvement
strategies upon performance assessments. High-scoring Hong Kong has also begun a
process of expanding its already-ambitious school-based assessment system in
collaboration with Queensland assessment developers.
12
In Victoria, a mixed system of centralized and decentralized assessment
combines these kinds of school-based assessment practices with a set of state exams.
Guided by the Victoria Essential Learning Standards, the AIM assessment program
provides an indication of how well the literacy and numeracy skills of students are
developing at years 3, 5, 7, and 9. The results provide information used to plan new
programs and a useful source of feedback and guidance to students, parents and teachers.
Assessment tasks include extended open-ended writing tasks, as well as some multiplechoice responses.
The Victoria Curriculum and Assessment Authority establishes courses in a wide
range of studies, develops the external examinations and ensures the quality of the
school-assessed component of the VCE. VCAA conceptualizes assessment as “of,”
“for,” and “as” learning. Teachers are involved in developing assessments, along with
university faculty in the subject area, and all prior year assessments are public, in an
attempt to make the standards and means of measuring them as transparent as possible.
Before the external examinations are given to students, teachers and academics sit and
take the exams themselves, as if they were students. The external subject-specific
examinations, given in grades 11 and 12, include written, oral, and performance elements
scored by classroom teachers.
In addition, at least 50% of the total examination score is comprised of classroombased tasks that are given throughout the school year. These required assignments and
assessments – lab experiments and investigations on central topics as well as research
papers and presentations – are designed by teachers in response to syllabus expectations.
These required classroom tasks ensure that students are getting the kind of learning
13
opportunities which prepare them for the assessments they will later take, that they are
getting feedback they need to improve, and that they will be prepared to succeed not only
on these very challenging tests but in college and in life, where they will have to apply
knowledge in these ways.
An example of how this blended assessment system works can be seen in the
interplay between an item from the Victoria, Australia biology test, and the classroombased tasks also evaluated for the examination score. The open-ended item describes a
particular virus and how it operates, then asks students to design a drug to kill the virus
and explain how the drug operates (the written answer is to include diagrams), and then
to design and describe an experiment to test the drug. In preparation for this on-demand
test, students taking Biology will have been assessed on six pieces of work during the
school year covering specific outcomes in the syllabus. For example, they will have
conducted “practical tasks” like using a microscope to study plant and animal cells by
preparing slides of cells, staining them, and comparing them in a variety of ways,
resulting in a written product with visual elements. They also will have completed and
presented a research report on characteristics of pathogenic organisms and mechanisms
by which organisms can defend against disease. These tasks link directly to the
expectations that students will encounter on the external examination, but go well beyond
what that examination can measure in terms of how students can apply their knowledge.
The tasks are graded according to criteria set out in the syllabus. The quality of
the tasks assigned by teachers, the work done by students, and the appropriateness of the
grades and feedback given to students are audited through an inspection system, and
schools are given feedback on all of these elements. In addition, the VCAA uses
14
statistical moderation to ensure that the same assessment standards are applied to students
across schools. The external exams are used as the basis for this moderation, which
adjusts the level and spread of each school’s assessments of its students to match the
level and spread of the same students’ scores on the common external test score. The
result is a rich curriculum for students with extensive teacher participation and a
comparable means for examining student learning.
United Kingdom. As in Victoria, assessments in Great Britain use a combination
of external and school-based tasks based on the national curriculum and course syllabi.
Throughout the school years, classroom-based tasks scored by teachers are used to
evaluate student achievement of curriculum goals. A mandatory set of assessments at
year 9 (age 14) includes both teacher-created and administered assessments and, for
students who have reached a certain level of achievement, national exams and tasks.21
While not mandatory, most students take a set of exams at year 11 (age 16) to
achieve their General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). Students may take as
many single-subject or combined-subject assessments as they like, and they choose which
ones they will take based on their interests and areas of expertise. Most GCSE items are
essay questions. The math exam includes questions that ask students to show their
reasoning behind their answers and foreign language exams require oral presentations.
About 25 to 30% of the final examination score is based on class work coursework and
assessments developed and graded by teachers. In many subjects, students also complete
a project worked on in class that is specified in the syllabus.
Wales and Northern Ireland allow students to participate in the GCSE exams at
the high school level on a voluntary basis, but both broke from the more centralized
15
system introduced in England under the Thatcher administration (later modified during
the Blair administration as described above) and opted to abolish national exams.22 Much
like Finland and Sweden, during the primary years, Welsh schools have a national school
curriculum supported by teacher-created, administered, and scored assessments.23
Northern Ireland, which has recently climbed significantly in international rankings,
especially in literacy, is implementing an approach called “Assessment for Learning.”
This approach emphasizes locally developed, administered and scored assessments and
focuses, as in Finland, on students and teachers setting goals and success criteria together,
teachers asking open-ended questions and students explaining their reasoning, teachers
providing feedback during formative assessment sessions, and students engaging in selfassessment and reflection on their learning. Optional externally graded assessments also
focus on how students reason, think, and problem solve.24
Hong Kong. In collaboration with educators from Australia, the UK, and other
nations, Hong Kong’s assessment system is evolving from a highly centralized
examination system to one that increasingly emphasizes school-based, formative
assessments that expect students to analyze issues and solve problems. The government
has decided gradually to replace the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examinations,
which most students sit for at the end of their 5-year secondary education, with a new
Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education that will feature school-based assessments.
In addition, the Hong Kong Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA), which provides
assesses lower-grade student performance, in Chinese, English, and mathematics, is
developing an on-line bank of assessment tasks to enable schools to assess their students
and receive feedback on their performance on their own timeframes. The formal TSA
16
assessments, which include both written and oral components, occur at Primary Grades 3
and 6 and Secondary Grade 3 (the equivalent of grade 9 in the U.S.).
As outlined in Hong Kong’s “Learning to learn” reform plan, the goal of the
reforms is to shape curriculum and instruction around critical thinking, problem-solving,
self-management skills, and collaboration. A particular concern is to develop metacognitive thinking skills, so students may identify their strengths and areas needing
additional work.25 By 2007, Curriculum and Assessment Guides were published for four
core subjects and 20 elective subjects, and assessments in the first two subjects – Chinese
Language and English Language – were revised. These became criterion-referenced,
performance-based assessments featuring not only the kinds of essays previously used on
the exams, but also new speaking and listening components, the composition of written
papers testing integrated skills, and a school-based component that factors into the
examination score. Although the existing assessments already use open-ended responses
(see the example of a Physics examination in Appendix A), the proportion of such
responses will increase in the revised assessments.
Like the existing assessments, the new assessments are developed by teachers
with the participation of higher education faculty, and they are scored by teachers who
are trained as assessors. Tests are allocated randomly to scorers, and essay responses are
typically rated by two independent scorers.26 Results of the new school-based
assessments are statistically moderated to ensure comparability within the province. The
assessments are internationally benchmarked, through the evaluation of sample student
papers, to peg the results to those in other countries. Many of the new assessments are
17
also to be scored on-line, which the Examinations Authority notes is now the common
practice in 20 of China’s mainland provinces, as well as in the UK.
To guide the process of assessment reform, the Education Bureau has
implemented a School Development and Accountability Framework which emphasizes
school self-evaluation, plus external peer evaluation, using a set of performance
indicators. The Bureau promotes the use of multiple forms of assessment in schools
including projects, portfolios, observations, and examinations, and looks for the variety
of assessments in the performance indicators used for school evaluation.27 For example,
the performance indicators ask: “Is the school able to adopt varied modes of assessment
and effectively assess students’ performance in respect of knowledge, skills, and
attitude?” and “How does the school make use of curriculum evaluation data to inform
curriculum planning?”28 This practice of examining school practices and the quality of
assessments through an inspection or peer review process is also used in Australia and
Great Britain to improve teaching by using standards as a tool for sharing knowledge and
reflecting on practice.
Conclusion
The design and use of standards, curricula, and assessments in high-achieving
nations around the world is significantly different from the way tests are designed and
used in the United States. Most testing in the U.S. emphasizes externally-developed,
machine-scored instruments that enter and leave the school in secret, offering little
opportunity for teacher engagement with the evaluation of standards and little
opportunity for student production of analyses, solutions, or ideas.
18
By contrast, assessment abroad involves teachers in developing and scoring
intellectually challenging performance tasks that are embedded in and guide instruction,
providing grist for feedback, student self-evaluation, and learning. The integration of
curriculum, assessment, and instruction in a well-developed teaching and learning system
creates the foundation for much more equitable and productive outcomes. Teachers and
students come to understand the standards deeply, and they work continuously on
activities and projects that develop skills as they are applied in the real world, as well as
on the examinations themselves.
The tasks common in these assessment systems reflect what people increasingly
need to know to succeed in today’s knowledge-based economy: the abilities to find,
analyze, and use information to solve real problems; to write and speak clearly and
persuasively; to defend ideas; and to design and manage projects. While the U.S.
accountability efforts have focused attention on achieving higher test scores, they has not
yet developed the kind of teaching and learning systems that could develop widespread
capacity for significantly greater learning. A new vision for assessment will be critical
to this goal – and to the possibilities of success for our children in today’s and
tomorrow’s world.
19
Hong Kong High School Physics Test
20
1
Institute for Education Sciences (2007). Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in
science and mathematics literacy in an international context. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved on 4/1/08 from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/index.asp.
2
See for example, W.H. Schmidt, H. C. Wang, and C.McKnight (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of
US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective, Journal of Curriculum Studes, 37
(5), 525-559; G.A. Valverde & W. H. Schmidt (2000). Greater expectations: Learning from other nations in the
quest for ‘world-class standards’ in US chool mathematics and science, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32 (5): 651687; P. Fensham (1994). Progression in school science curriculum: A rational prospect or a chimera? Research in
Science Education, 24 (1), 76-82.
3
Rustique-Forrester, E. (2005). Accountability and the pressures to exclude: A cautionary tale from England.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, http://epaa.edu/epaa/v13n26/
21
4
For a summary see L. Darling-Hammond and E. Rustique-Forrester (2005). The Consequences of Student Testing
for Teaching and Teacher Quality. In Joan Herman and Edward Haertel (eds.) The Uses and Misuses of Data in
Accountability Testing, pp. 289-319. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
5
R. Laukkanen (2008). Finnish strategy for high-level education for all. In N. C. Soguel and P. Jaccard (eds.).
Governance and Performance of Education Systems. 305–324. Springer, at p. 319. See also F. Buchberger & I.
Buchberger, Problem solving capacity of a teacher education system as a condition of success? An analysis of the
“Finnish case,” In F. Buchberger and S. Berghammer (eds.): Education Policy Analysis in a Comparative
Perspective, pp. 222-237. Linz: Trauner.
6
European Commission. (2006/2007). “Eurybase, The Information Database on Education Systems in Europe, The
Education System in Sweden.”
7
M.A. Eckstein & H.J. Noah. (1993). Secondary School Examinations: International Perspectives on Policies and
Practice. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 84.
8
Finnish National Board of Education. (November 12th, 2007). “Background for Finnish PISA Success.” Retrieved
on September 8th, 2008 from http://www.oph.fi/english/SubPage.asp?path=447,65535,77331; Lavonen, J. (2008).
“Reasons behind Finnish Students’ Success in the PISA Scientific Literacy Assessment.” University of Helsinki,
Finland. Retrieved on September 8th, 2008 from
http://www.oph.fi/info/finlandinpisastudies/conference2008/science_results_and_reasons.pdf.
9
Finnish National Board of Education. (June 10th, 2008). “Basic Education.” Retrieved on September 11th, 2008
from http://www.oph.fi/english/page.asp?path=447,4699,4847.
10
Korpela, Salla. (December 2004). “The Finnish school – a source of skills and well-being: A day at Stromberg
Lower Comprehensive School.” Retrieved on September 11th, 2008 from
http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=30625
11
The Finnish Matriculation Examination. (2008). Retrieved on September 8th, 2008 from
http://www.ylioppilastutkinto.fi/en/index.html
12
Kaftandjieva, F. & Takala, S. (2002). “Relating the Finnish Matriculation Examination English Test Results to the
CEF Scales.”
13
Swedish National Agency for Education. (2005). “The Swedish School System: Compulsory School.” Retrieved
on May 31st, 2008 from http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/354/a/959
14
Eckstein and Noah, 1993, p. 83-84; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2008). “Sweden: Assessment
arrangements.” Retrieved on September 11th, 2008 from http://www.inca.org.uk/690.html. O’Donnell (December,
2004). International Review of Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks. Comparative tables and factual summaries
– 2004. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and National Foundation for Educational Research, p. 23.
Retrieved on 9/11/08 from http://www.inca.org.uk/pdf/comparative.pdf.
15
Swedish National Agency for Education (2005).
16
Eckstein and Noah, 1993; O’Donnell, 2004).
17
Eckstein and Noah, 1993, p. 230.
18
Petterson, A. (2008). The National Tests and National Assessment in Sweden. Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm
Institute for Education. PRIM gruppen. Retrieved on May 31st, 2008 from
http://www.prim.su.se/artiklar/pdf/Sw_test_ICME.pdf
19
Eckstein & Noah, 1993, pp. 270-272.
20
Queensland Government (2001). “New Basics: The Why, What, How and When of Rich Tasks.” Retrieved on
September 12th, 2008 from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/pdfs/richtasksbklet.pdf
21
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2008). “England: Assessment arrangements.” Retrieved on May 27th,
2008 from http://www.inca.org.uk/1315.
http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/html/richtasks/richtasks.html
22
Archer, J. (December 19th, 2006). “Wales Eliminates National Exams for Many Students.” Education Week.
Retrieved on 9/11/08 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/12/20/16wales.h26.html?qs=Wales
23
Welsh Assembly Government. (2008). “Primary (3-11).” Retrieved on September 12th, 2008 from
http://old.accac.org.uk/eng/content.php?cID=5; Welsh Assembly Government. (2008b). “Secondary (11-16).”
Retrieved on September 12th, 2008 from http://old.accac.org.uk/eng/content.php?cID=6
24
Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment. (2008). “Curriculum, Key Stage 3, Post-Primary
Assessment.” Retrieved on September 12th, 2008 from http://www.ccea.org.uk/;
Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment. (2008). “Qualifications.” Retrieved on September 12th,
2008 from http://www.ccea.org.uk/.
22
25
Chan, J.K., K.J. Kennedy, F.W. Yu, P. Fok. (2008). “Assessment Policy in Hong Kong: Implementation Issues for
New Forms of Assessment.” The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Retrieved on September 12th, 2008 from
http://www.iaea.info/papers.aspx?id=68
26
Dowling, M. (undated). Examining the Exams. Retrieved on Sept. 14, 2008 from
http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/files/pdf/markdowling_e.pdf.
27
Chan, et al., 2008; Quality Assurance Division of the Education Bureau, 2008).
28
Quality Assurance Division of the Education Bureau. (2008). “Performance Indicators for Hong Kong Schools,
2008 with Evidence of Performance.” Retrieved on September 12th, 2008 from
http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_6456/pi2008%20eng%205_5.pdf
23